Post on 05-Jul-2020
Alameda County Coordinated Entry System Committee Meeting 2 March 3, 2016
1
Agenda � Welcome
� Meeting Objectives
� Progress toward Coordinated Entry
� What is Prioritization
� Small Groups
� Options for Matching Using Prioritization
� Small Groups
� Wrap-up and Next Steps
2
Meeting Objectives
1. Review system goals and progress 2. Look at prioritization factors 3. Consider how a system uses prioritization 4. Identify necessary considerations in tool development
3
CES Background
� Project is a major component of our system redesign which launched in February of 2014
� Community Planning Charette in July 2015 had over 200 stakeholders providing input into what would help our CoC respond to people without homes more effectively
� Consumers and providers strongly advocated for more streamlined access to services that were prioritized for the most vulnerable and better matched to people’s needs—that’s Coordinated Entry.
� The 2012 HEARTH Act Interim Final Rule also requires that all CoCs operate a CES.
4
What should CES accomplish?
� Simplify access for clients
� Ensure fairness, consistency and transparency
� Speed movement from homelessness to housing
� Prioritize must vulnerable for assistance
� Match households to most appropriate available intervention
� Target limited resources more efficiently
5
Permanent Supportive Housing RRH/Market Rental
Triage
Literally Homeless
Non-Homeless
Emergency Shelter
Housing Centered Case Management
Transitional Housing
Housing Prioritization &
Matching
Subsidized Rental Friends/Family
Diversion and prevention
Coordinated Entry System
Outreach – Access - Referral
Connected Services: Health, benefits, Behavioral Health, Substance Abuse,
legal, Childcare, Education, Employment Services
HRC/HUB Diversion
6
Progress toward CES in Alameda County
� EveryOne Home CES
� Home Stretch: Re-launching in March. Meeting with housing providers. Developing standard tools.
� Shelters: Survey completed. Subcommittee looking at results, standards.
� Berkeley HCRS launched
� Oakland Call Center launched
� Website launch
7
Progress toward CES: Committee Work � CES Committee Input on Access ◦ Need easy phone access ◦ Front door needs to be linguistically and culturally
competent ◦ Need access in all regions of AC, near transportation ◦ Virtual access should be an option for outreach/mobile
services ◦ Outreach should target hard to reach homeless ◦ Include local businesses, churches, libraries and mainstream
services providers in network
� Guiding Principles ◦ Subcommittee met, clarified language and format, presented
back to funders
8
Progress toward CES: Referral Sub-Committee Recommendations � Referrals ◦ Central call center ◦ Parallel DV system with screen in CES ◦ Assessments done at HRC/Hub ◦ Diversion at HRC/Hub
� Shelter ◦ Real-time availability ◦ Beds mostly regional
� Transitional ◦ Short-stay/crisis model programs treated like shelter (regional) ◦ Service-intensive population-specific models treated like PSH
� Permanent Housing ◦ Countywide, but with client choice/geographic preference
� Rapid Rehousing ◦ Undecided: Currently mostly regionally distributed resources and Countywide utilization
9
Process and Timeline
� EveryOne Home Charter Adopted October 2015 � Funders Collaborative established October � CES Committee established January � CES Committee Phase One Design process Jan-May � Community Meeting April � Leadership Committee June � Implementation planning July – October, including written
standards, protocols, and performance measures � Staged launch county-wide
10
PRIORITIZATION Alameda County CES
11
Prioritization Context: Homelessness in Alameda County
12
What is Prioritization?
� Assessing and determining who is ◦ greatest need ◦ highest need ◦ most severe service needs
� giving those with the greatest needs priority for the housing and homeless assistance available in the CoC.
Why is Prioritization needed and helpful?
� Clients have a more equitable access to services than the first-come first-served model
� Programs know their role and population to be served and save time by not screening clients for entry
� System can make sure highest needs people are offered services
� System can see where augmentation of services is needed and leverage them
� System can effectively work toward functional zero
14
Remember…
� Prioritization ≠ Matching � Prioritization ≠ Eligibility
15
A few examples of prioritization factors
� length of time homeless only � vulnerability and high need criteria � high-cost service user predictor
Hybrids � high need and high service utilization history � current housing situation and time in system/barriers
acuity � high-risk age group, families, episodes of homelessness,
extremely low/no income, disabilities – validated by vulnerability and high need criteria tool
16
Group Activity 1: Prioritization Factors
� Alameda County’s system of care will be identifying the “highest need” people and working to end unsheltered homelessness by using the following prioritization factors: _______.
� 25 min to provide rank order of factors with table
� for singles and families with children
17
Matching Methods Using Prioritization
� First, assume diversion, prevention are in place � Second, identify what we would need in our system to
make one method or another work
18
Sample Distribution of Scores
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Score “Buckets” for Matching
Mainstream RRH PSH
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Continuous Matching
Mainstream RRH PSH
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Group Activity 2: Matching Methods
� Small group conversations about how we use prioritization to match people to available housing and services
22
Next Steps and Timing
� CES Committee and Sub-Committees ◦ Next full meeting 4/7 at 9:30 AM ◦ Subcommittee on Tools – See us after meeting
23